What is your answer?
Moore claims that "good" is indefinable in the sense that it can't be given
{ 1 } - a verbal definition that describes common usage.
{ 2 } - an arbitrary verbal definition that stipulates a meaning.
{ 3 } - an analysis into simple parts.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Moore claims that "good" is indefinable in the sense that it can't be given
{ 1 } - a verbal definition that describes common usage.
{ 2 } - an arbitrary verbal definition that stipulates a meaning.
{ 3 } - an analysis into simple parts.
We could say, for example, that English speakers use "good" in roughly the same way that Spanish speakers use "bueno."
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Moore claims that "good" is indefinable in the sense that it can't be given
{ 1 } - a verbal definition that describes common usage.
{ 2 } - an arbitrary verbal definition that stipulates a meaning.
{ 3 } - an analysis into simple parts.
We could stipulate that by the letters "good" we will mean "doorknob."
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Moore claims that "good" is indefinable in the sense that it can't be given
{ 1 } - a verbal definition that describes common usage.
{ 2 } - an arbitrary verbal definition that stipulates a meaning.
{ 3 } - an analysis into simple parts.
We can't analyze "good" into simpler parts -- since it's a simple idea already.
There must be such simple ideas, or else we could endlessly keep defining concepts by simpler concepts. But this is impossible. If we keep breaking things into simpler parts, we'll eventually get simple parts that we can't break down further.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end